A technician examines the SUV packed with bomb materials in New York's Times Square. Photograph: Brendan Mcdermid/Reuters

Late on Monday, after a 53-hour Jack Bauer-style manhunt, Faisal Shahzad – the person allegedly behind the Time Square bomb plot – was arrested. The 30-year-old was buckled into his seat on a flight out of JFK Airport in New York, on his way to Dubai. His first words to the authorities: "I was expecting you. Are you NYPD or FBI?" To his bitter disappointment neither the FBI nor NYPD escorted him off the airline: Customs and Border Patrol agents took Shahzad away.

There is nothing remarkable about Faisal Shahzad. The married, father-of-two arrived in the US a decade ago, and studied privately in both Washington and Connecticut. No mosque claims to have any knowledge of him, and so far the most interesting fact about his life to have emerged is that he frequently ate at the Red Lobster restaurant chain. What is remarkable, however, is that Shahzad now stands alongside growing alumni of fellow would-be-terrorists who – for want of a cruder word – messed up. The nature of the flawed attempts does show that these young men are juvenile and like many other criminals.

Shahzad wanted to cause havoc in the heart of New York City. He was, however, to fail. His plan, it appears, was to blow up a crude gasoline and propane device inside a parked SUV. He intended to do so using M-88 fireworks, which would be hard-pressed to "damage a watermelon". There was no explosion. As he abandoned the vehicle, the keys found in the ignition included the key to his home in Bridgeport, and the place where he purchased the fireworks had him clearly sighted on video tape. So overall, not the brightest terrorist around: though he's certainly not the dumbest.

In December last year Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab – known now as the 'Detroit Bomber' – discovered that the device he hoped to detonate preferred to stay in his underwear. En route to being arrested, Abdulmutallab saw his trouser leg on fire. He later told authorities of being directed by al-Qaida. Perhaps not the finest graduate from the al-Qaida ranks. But neither was Richard Reid, the infamous "Shoe Bomber" of 2001, whose boot-held device failed to detonate due to foot perspiration. Then of course there are the seven Afghans involved in the Najibullah Zazi case last year, who attempted to rent a truck at a Queens U-Haul rental without credit cards or identification. Clearly they were not well versed in the shock such a gesture would receive in the US where even chocolate bars are regularly purchased with credit cards these days. The manager, just slightly suspicious, called the police.

My point here is not to paint all terrorists as incompetent: no one would call Mohammad Atta or Khalid Sheikh Mohammad amateurs. To do so would be to dampen legitimate national security concerns. Although there has not been a 9/11-style attack on US soil since … well, since 9/11, the volume of small-scale attempts is clearly growing. In the past six months alone, there have been three notable events, and terrorists like Shahzad may raise a vulnerability to terrorism. That is, if we treat this as terrorism.

In the post-9/11 era there has been a special effort by intelligence services and terrorism researchers to decipher the "terrorist mind". It is, however, counter-productive to think along such static lines, due in part to the sheer uselessness of a lot of the terrorist activity seen so far. Modelling a terror suspect based upon the activity of Reid, Zazi, Abdulmutallab or Shahzad could even lead to an under-estimation of what more serious suspects may, or may not be, able to do. Many terrorists are often weak, and not very bright, rather like most criminals, and therefore they should be tried and treated like criminals too. An attempt to unravel special legislation, or even altering legislation regarding their handling, would play into the hands of global networks such as the Taliban, who seem to be tuned into the nearest cave television waiting to claim responsibility.

Another case may elucidate. Ali Beheshti, in 2008, miserably attempted to bomb the home of a controversial author in the UK. Beheshti, a bungling individual, who would often be seen shouting and screaming at radical rallies, even managed to accidentally set himself alight at a protest once. Yet, for all of Beheshti's visits to radical websites, protests in London, and so on, only one, concrete, fact about Beheshti could help to predict that he was a danger: Beheshti had a criminal conviction for the attempted murder of his father. Of course, radical indoctrination plays its part, but it does not tell us the complete story about a violent act. Indeed, there are those terrorists for whom ideology is the principal factor to cause terror around the world. But this cannot be said for all. Are Shahzad and the like the front-line warriors of global terrorism? I don't think so. At best, they are dumb criminals who should be branded as such.

And this is what makes the debate over Shahzad's Miranda rights so amusing. Senator John McCain said this week that reading Shahzad his Miranda rights would be a "mistake". "Don't give this guy his Miranda rights," declared the former presidential candidate, "until we find out what it's all about." Perhaps McCain has failed to understand that the Miranda Rights – which stipulate that a suspect must be informed that they have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney -- are of course by design intended to be read to suspects 'before we find out what it's all about.' This is the basis for their existence.

Even Glenn Beck, the man who once said Barack Obama has a "deep-seated hatred for white people", agreed to Shahzad being "Mirandized": "He's a citizen of the United States so I say we uphold the law and the Constitution on citizens."

I agree with Mr Beck. Upholding the law is precisely how to deal with Shahzad. Any move to provide excessive credibility will galvanize other sad, pathetic, young individuals craving the same attention. After all, we already know it is being expected.